On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Ken Conley <
kwc@willowgarage.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> * We depend on the `*-dev` packages for source builds, but not for
>> binary installs. Which should be specified? Should we pull in the
>> development package anyway for binary installs? (I believe that is
>> currently the case.)
>
> For now, -dev must be included. None of the release tools distinguish
> between "Build-Depends" and "Depends", though this is definitely a
> future desire. It's also an artifact of not producing -dev versions
> for ROS stacks.
Does that mean we should leave off the `-dev` suffix in our rosdep keys?
>> * In most cases, renaming a system-wide rosdep key deserves some sort
>> of tick-tock with deprecation in one release and removal in the next.
>> Presumably meta-entries can provide two names simultaneously during
>> the overlap period. I can't think of a way to issue a deprecation
>> message, however. At least, that allows externally-maintained
>> repositories to build the same source code on both Electric and
>> Fuerte. That is important to people like me.
>
> +1 to tick-tock, though Fuerte is a chance to jump the chasm, so to
> speak, as rosdep has two distinct databases. Creating the unified
> database already pointed out inconsistencies with rules like Qt, which
> created some realignment in the core stacks.
Good point about Fuerte and Electric using distinct databases. That
suggests a focused effort to "normalize" the names before Fuerte final
freeze.
>> * Since these are system dependencies, I suggest adopting names
>> similar to the corresponding Ubuntu package names. Although other
>> packaging systems use different names, that at least provides a
>> canonical list that anyone can guess.
>
> Sure, though it's the case that anything that is built as part of
> catkin/Fuerte assumes the name of the project, so there are some
> exceptions like ROS stacks and libraries like eigen, opencv, and pcl.
In a sense, the ROS names of those packages are the "official" names.
>> * For complicated dependencies like OpenCV, PCL and Qt, meta-entries
>> are a good idea. It should still be possible to depend on subsets of
>> those entire sets of libraries. For example, we want packages to be
>> able to use pcl_common without pulling in every single PCL library.
>
> BTW: PCL in Fuerte is roughly equivalent to pcl-all, but they are
> *not* the same debs as in the ppa. It should be possible in the future
> to produce an equivalent set of separate debs.
Is there any hope of getting a stripped-down pcl_common into Fuerte?
The `pcl_ros` package should really only depend on that, a significant
special case.
--
joq
(text/plain)